WASHINGTON,
D.C. – U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) today scored a victory
for human rights. Following months of intense negotiations with Republicans,
the Bush Administration, and the management of the Export-Import bank,
the House approved a Schakowsky amendment which states “…the sense of the
Congress that detailed information on the potential impact on human rights
of proposed Export-Import Bank projects should be available to the management
of the bank.”
“This
amendment is an acknowledgement that we have much more to do to improve
the human rights record of the Ex-Im Bank, prevent human rights abuses
and ensure U.S. taxpayer dollars are spent responsibly-without compromising
the project financing portfolio of the bank. The key to achieving those
goals is information,” Schakowsky said
She
added, “Additional information on human rights is necessary because the
current policy is too broad and only allows the denial of projects on human
rights grounds. Since this is the only way to respond to human rights,
the current human rights analysis is a consideration of whether a project
should be cancelled. This significantly lowers the prospect of ensuring
human rights protection for Ex-Im-funded projects. There should be
more tools available to Ex-Im to assess human rights.”
“In
reality, there are very few projects that would warrant cancellation or
denial of Ex-Im funding because of severe human rights impacts. But
many more projects may have human rights concerns that if adequately identified
beforehand, could be mitigated during project design. More information
is needed because Ex-Im does not receive detailed assessments on a project-by-project
basis of the potential impact proposed projects may have on human rights,”
Schakowsky said.
Below
is Schakowsky’s full statement during debate on the legislation.
I
want to start by commending the Chairman and ranking member of the Financial
Services Committee and the Chairman and Ranking member of the Financial
Services Subcommittee on International Monetary Policy for their work on
this important bill. I also want to particularly express my gratitude
to the Gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, the Chairman of the International
Monetary policy Subcommittee and his staff for working with me so that
human rights concerns and protections would be included in this debate
and a part of this legislation.
Our
ranking member on the Subcommittee, the gentleman from Vermont, Mr. Sanders,
has been a leader throughout this process and I commend him for his tireless
efforts on behalf of working people, small businesses, human rights and
the environment.
This
is a modest but necessary amendment to the Export-Import Bank reauthorization
bill.
My
amendment states the sense of the Congress that detailed information on
the potential impact on human rights of proposed Export-Import Bank projects
should be available to the management of the bank.
Additional
information on human rights is necessary because the current policy is
too broad and only allows the denial of projects on human rights grounds.
Since this is the only way to respond to human rights, the current human
rights analysis is a consideration of whether a project should be cancelled.
This
significantly lowers the prospect of ensuring human rights protection for
Ex-Im-funded projects. There should be more tools available to Ex-Im
to assess human rights. In reality, there are very few projects that would
warrant cancellation or denial of Ex-Im funding because of severe human
rights impacts. But many more projects may have human rights concerns
that if adequately identified beforehand, could be mitigated during project
design. More information is needed because Ex-Im does not receive
detailed assessments on a project-by-project basis of the potential impact
proposed projects may have on human rights.
Again,
this is a modest amendment. It is not the solution to what I believe
to be the legitimate and serious concerns of human rights experts like
Human Rights Watch, members of Congress, and numerous other human rights
experts and advocates throughout the world.
This
amendment is an acknowledgement that we have much more to do to improve
the human rights record of the Ex-Im Bank, prevent human rights abuses
and ensure U.S. taxpayer dollars are spent responsibly-without compromising
the project financing portfolio of the bank. The key to achieving those
goals is information.
As
my colleagues on the Financial Services Committee know, I offered a stronger
amendment during Committee consideration of this bill. That amendment
would have created A human rights office within Ex-Im, which would have
the capacity and expertise to develop such strategies to identify and mitigate
real and potential human rights problems. I still stand by
that approach. However, there are other ways to improve the Bank’s
performance on human rights.
Additional
responsibility and authority for the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights,
and Labor within the State Department is another way we could provide the
information that is needed. I have spoken with senior officials at
the State Department who agree that more scrutiny should be placed on major
Ex-Im projects that are proposed. So, While I am pleased and grateful
about the prospects for this amendment that I am offering today, I intend
to do much more in the time to come. I hope that all members will
join me in those future efforts.
The
United States should lead the world in the struggle for human rights, fairness,
and equality for all. Our economy and our trade agenda are, of course,
critically important to our nation’s welfare and our security. However,
we must never send a message to our neighbors in the international community
or to the American corporate community that we are willing to compromise
human needs for corporate greed.
Ex-Im
has a responsibility to U.S. taxpayers to ensure our money is well spent
and the Congress has a responsibility to place human rights on an equal
footing will all other considerations in our international economic agenda.
Passage of this amendment would be a measured step in that direction.
I
want to just take a portion of my time to state on the record some examples
of the need for more information about human rights when Ex-Im considers
projects.
Had
such information existed during consideration of the Enron power project
in India, Ex-Im staff would have identified previous human rights problems
and could have consulted with local, national, or international human rights
organizations for further information. This would have allowed for
recommendations that Enron make certain commitments to corporate responsibility,
for example, that would have mitigated the problems that occurred later
in the project and after Ex-Im funding was approved.
Yet
another lesson of the Enron collapse has been the clear need for greater
oversight of projects financed with taxpayers’ dollars.
-
The
Dahbol power project is partially owned and operated by Enron. The
project received approximately $290 million in Ex-Im guarantees—despite
the World Bank’s refusal to fund it and serious human rights problems related
to its construction. According to Human Rights Watch, “Enron subsidiaries
paid local law enforcement to suppress opposition to its power plant.
They broke down the door and window of one of the protestor’s bathrooms
and dragged her naked into the street, beating her with batons. The
protestor was 3 months pregnant at the time.”
-
The
$96 million Ex-Im guarantee to Turkmenistan was approved despite the State
Department's own reports of the government's dismal human rights record.
A more detailed analysis of the human rights impacts of major projects
would provide more opportunities to improve projects in order to prevent
human rights problems without raising the prospect of project cancellation
as the only way to address human rights.
In
addition to the Turkmenistan and India projects mentioned above, there
are other projects that Ex-Im has approved over the last year that would
clearly warrant a more detailed human rights analysis. This is not
meant to imply that there were human rights problems with these projects,
but that given problems within these industries and countries, a detailed
analysis was warranted. These projects include:
-
Angola,
where on April 10, 2001, Ex-Im approved a project in excess of $20 million
for oil field services and equipment. An assessment would have been
useful since Angola's government is notoriously opaque, abusive, and has
routinely mismanaged oil revenues and has harassed and arrested journalists
seeking further information on the use of oil revenues. Moreover,
the International Monetary Fund recently announced that it would not lend
money to the government until it improved its fiscal management and became
more transparent in its use of oil revenues. An assessment could
have identified these potential problems in order to mitigate them.
-
In
Russia on December 19, 2000, ExIm approved a $91 million project for diamond
mine processing equipment and services to Alrosa, the Russian diamond company.
Alrosa operates in countries such as Angola where the issue of conflict
diamonds is of serious concern. Since inherent risks due to conflict
and human rights violations related to diamond mining are serious problems
in several parts of the world, a detailed assessment would have been useful
to determine whether such risks exist with this project.
Again,
I thank my colleagues on the Financial Services Committee, particularly
the Chairmen and ranking Democratic members of the full committee and the
International Monetary policy Committee for their work and leadership.
I
urge all of my colleagues to support this modest amendment and put the
Congress on record in support of human rights and responsible behavior
when we conduct business abroad. I yield back the balance of my time. |